Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh (R) believes that transgender people’s bodies are traumatizing, and that’s why he’s pushing a bill to legalize discrimination based on gender identity. This is considered a “softening” from his first effort to criminalize transgender people’s use of restrooms, but not by much. Kavanagh explained why he’s trying to overturn the city of Phoenix’s nondiscrimination protections in an extended interview with Michelangelo Signorile on Wednesday:

KAVANAGH: First of all, the bathroom wasn’t the major issue. The real purpose of my bill was for showers. What Phoenix did was allow someone who is biologically male who thinks they’re female to go into a gym or a swimming pool shower or a locker room where people undress completely and this could be a woman or a girl or a young girl. I’ve had a number of parents say that they would be outraged if a man, a person who is biologically male, is in the locker room. [...]

Anybody who is concerned about a black person in a restaurant is sick, but a parent who is concerned about a young child in a locker room in this situation is a good parent in my opinion. What we have here essentially is a balancing of rights. The right not to be exposed. I think there’s psychological harm to a young girl exposed to the genitalia of the opposite sex. I think there’s some trauma there for some young girls. I don’t think it’s appropriate in that environment.

Listen to the full interview:

Amazingly, the word “penis” was avoided during the entire conversation, but its looming presence bespeaks how offensive Kavanagh’s position is. Transgender people are too often reduced to their bodies such that they cannot be seen as real people. It’s absurd to conclude that all girls would experience psychological harm by simply seeing another person’s body, and such an assertion suggests that trans people’s bodies are somehow dangerous to others. Kavanagh tried to obfuscate responsibility for his position by referring to a case at Evergreen College where a trans woman’s use of the locker room raised concern with a young girl’s family.  He neglected to mention that it’s the very anti-LGBT Alliance Defending Freedom that is responsible for raising the controversy in the first place.

Kavanagh’s description of a trans person as someone “who is biologically male who thinks they’re female” suggests his understanding of how his bill might actually impact trans people is limited. Consider the lived experience of the transgender woman, who identifies, presents, and lives as a woman in every aspect of her life. She may have undergone hormone therapy, electrolysis/laser hair removal, and other procedures to bring her body and gender into alignment, but she may have elected not to undergo surgery on her genitals — a costly, invasive procedure that would likely permanently sterilize her, depriving her of her reproductive rights. If she were to enter a men’s restroom or locker room, she would look entirely out of place, and as Signorile pointed out, would face a heightened risk for violence and harassment. The women’s room is the correct room for her to use. According to Kavanagh, however, the mere fact that she might still happen to have a penis that another girl in the locker room might just happen to see is such a safety risk to the girl that discrimination against all trans people is thus justified. It’s absurd, belittling, and just plain bigoted.

The “bathroom safety” myth is a way to make transgender people seem scary in a way that dehumanizes them such that discrimination seems like an important precaution to protect children. While there is no evidence to suggest trans people threaten children’s safety, there is ample evidence that discrimination threatens trans people’s safety. In the end, this is just a bigoted politician’s sugarcoated way of saying, “Eww.”

Today, the DC Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking (DISB) issued a bulletin clarifying key protections for transgender people in the District of Columbia. The bulletin provides a clear directive to insurers that discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression is not an acceptable business practice in Washington.

The bulletin prohibits insurance companies from some of the most egregious practices that have been used to lock transgender people out of health care coverage, including:

• Denying, cancelling, limiting, or refusing to renew an insurance policy.
• Limiting insurance coverage on the basis of gender identity or expression.
• Denying coverage for a procedure that is provided for the treatment of other conditions of illness. For example, if a plan covers hormone therapy for some diagnoses, it cannot categorically exclude coverage for hormone therapy related to gender identity disorder or other transition-related diagnosis.

DC joins a growing number of states, municipalities, and employers who recognize that equal access to health coverage is supported by medical science, improves the health of transgender people, and does not significantly increase costs. Ending arbitrary insurance discrimination against transgender people simply supports what expert medical bodies have been saying for years: transition-related health care is medically necessary for many transgender individuals whose health and well-being depends on bringing their physical body into alignment with their gender identity, and determination of what care an individual patient needs properly rests with medical providers, not insurance companies.

Read the full bulletin and the joint announcement from the Mayor’s Office of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (GLBT) Affairs and the Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking.

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) has made quite the splash during his first few months back in office, including calling for President Obama’s impeachment, inviting Ted Nugent to the State of the Union, and taking bets on what his female colleagues might wear. Now, he has expressed his opposition to the Violence Against Women Act, specifically because of its protections for the LGBT community:

STOCKMAN: This is a truly bad bill. This is helping the liberals, this is horrible. Unbelievable. What really bothers — it’s called a women’s act, but then they have men dressed up as women, they count that. Change-gender, or whatever. How is that — how is that a woman?

If Stockman is interested in learning about people whose gender was incorrectly assigned at birth, he could start by learning that the proper word for this community is “transgender,” not “change-gender.” Perhaps then he could meet some trans people, listen to their stories, and learn how transwomen experiences every moment of their lives as women — not “men dressed up as women” — regardless of what conclusions he might draw if he invaded their privacy to inspect their anatomy. Then, he could study the extreme rates of discrimination that transgender people experience, including extreme poverty and rejection from domestic violence shelters. Maybe then he would not be so bothered by the language in the bill.

All people deserve to be protected from violence, particularly the communities that are particularly vulnerable to unfair treatment. Rather than mock people whose identities he doesn’t understand, Stockman might consider actually taking the time to investigate why his fellow lawmakers thought the protections important enough to include.

Donnie Collins, center, with two of his supportive fraternity brothers.

Some fraternity brothers at Emerson College decided to an amazing thing for one of their newest members: help raise money to pay for his breast reduction surgery as part of his gender transition. Their initial goal was $2,000, to cover just a quarter of Donnie Collins’ costs, but have so far raised not only the full $8,125 it would cost, but now over $20,000. The fraternity decided to donate the excess funds to the Jim Collins Foundation (no relation), which helps transgender people with financial assistance for gender-confirming surgeries. Now, it seems that there was a mistake, and Collins’ insurance has agreed to cover the costs.

After Collins’ initial rejection from Aetna, Emerson reached out for clarification, because its insurance policy is supposed to cover transgender benefits. In fact, it was among the first universities in the country to offer trans-inclusive coverage. According to a statement from the college, the language for the inclusive policy “had inadvertently not been updated by Aetna on their internal documents.” Now that it has been clarified, Collins’ surgery can proceed, requiring only that he pay an insurance copay. His hormone therapy, for which he has also paid hundreds of dollars out-of-pocket, will also now be covered. The brothers still plan to donate all the extra funding to the Jim Collins Foundation.

Collins’ story is a simple example of how transgender people still face legal and financial obstacles to simply arrive at an authentic identity. He is fortunate to have such loving fraternity brothers and a considerate university that appreciates his healthcare needs, but many trans people have no such advocates. Hopefully his happy ending can inspire others to do right by trans people and help them receive the care they deserve.

Here’s a clip Collins recorded explaining his transition and everything that’s transpired so far:

Coy Mathis

Six-year-old Coy Mathis is transgender, and until December 2012, she was allowed to use the girls’ bathrooms at her elementary school in Fountain, Colorado. But then, administrators informed her parents that she would be required to use the boys’ bathroom, a staff bathroom, or the nurse’s bathroom. The Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund (TLDEF) urged the school to reconsider, but the school refused, so now the group has filed a complaint on Coy’s behalf with the Colorado Civil Rights Division.

This complaint will be the first test of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which includes protections based on gender identity. Other Colorado school districts, like Boulder Valley Schools, have already crafted policies guaranteeing “students shall have access to the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity consistently asserted at school.” Here, though, is how district officials at Fountain-Fort Carson School District 8 justified discriminating against Coy’s gender identity:

The District’s decision took into account not only Coy but other students in the building, their parents, and the future impact a boy with male genitals using a girls’ bathroom would have as Coy grew older. The reason it has not apparently been an “issue” to date is that fellow students and even the other teachers in the building are not aware that Coy is a male and at his young age, he may appear to be a female. In addition, when he was in kindergarten last year, the restroom facilities were gender-neutral, as opposed to the restrooms used by elementary school students.

I’m certain you can appreciate that as Coy grows older and his* male genitals develop along with the rest of his body, at least some parents and students are likely to become uncomfortable with his continued use of the girls’ restroom, and that it would be far more psychologically damaging and disruptive for the issue at an age when students deal with lots of social issues.

The lawyer who penned the letter clarified in a footnote that male pronouns were used “not in an attempt to be disrespectful, but because I am referring to male genitals.” Of course, it is disrespectful, because Coy’s gender is not determined by her genitals — she is not a “boy with male genitals,” but a girl whose genitals are irrelevant — which is exactly the point of this entire issue. The state’s protections are determined by gender identity, not genitalia. Focusing solely on an individual’s anatomy is one of the biggest obstacles to respecting trans people as whole individuals, and it’s clearly the obstacle in this case.

Coy’s parents are currently homeschooling her until this situation is resolved.

NYT 'Ethicist' Chuck Klosterman

The New York Times’ “Ethicist,” Chuck Klosterman, offered a disappointing response to a transgender reader on Friday. The reader wrote in to explain that she was beginning to transition to living as a woman, but she was struggling with how the transition might impact her wife and three children. Klosterman suggested that it was a question of happiness, and that perhaps the reader was better off not stressing her family with the news:

You believe you will “find happiness” only by being your true self — but that’s not exactly accurate. You describe your marriage as happy, you love your children, and your career is (at the very least) satisfying enough to make you worry about how a gender transition might complicate things. There is happiness in your life. Now, I realize what you’re referring to is a deeper, existential version of happiness that all people crave (and which goes far beyond having a good relationship or a good job). There are, however, many people who never experience that level of happiness, regardless of how they view their sexual identities. Even if you become someone else, you may never find it. So what we’re really weighing are the ethics of taking an irreversible gamble that will potentially improve your own interior life while significantly reinventing the lives of those around you. [...]

Is your psychological damage from gender dysphoria greater than the psychological damage that its restoration will inflict upon the lives of any (or all) of your children? If the answer is yes, proceed. If the answer is no, don’t do it. Your sadness is tragic, but at least it’s confined to yourself.

This unfortunate response does little to affirm the experience of this reader or transgender people in general. Ami Kaplan, a New York City Psychotherapist who works with trans patients, wrote this thoughtful response:

What is really happening?  As a therapist who has specialized in Transgenderism for the past 18 years I know that people of this age come to see me when they can no longer live with their Gender Dysphoria.  It’s not about happiness; it’s about no longer being able to continue as they have in the past.  Gender Dysphoria is an intense, psychologically painful and anxiety laden state which can intensify over time to the point of being intolerable.  Gender is our first and most intimate identity, and to have that be wrong in some way is deeply disturbing.  I have had many people say some form of:  “there is no choice, it’s either this or I kill myself”.  Furthermore, transitioning is a process of becoming who one authentically is.  I think that’s a pretty good lesson for kids.

The ‘problems’ inherent in all this is that there is significant stigma and discrimination around being transgender in our society.  The only way to combat this is for brave people to acknowledge and be who they are and try and maintains good relationships with those around them.   I think if we envision a person in other (and now less) stigmatized groups in Mr. Klosterman’s article, the issue becomes clearer.  For example – an African American man in, say 1940 wanting to marry a white woman, or a gay person of the same era wanting to be an “out” school teacher… all things that the individual’s family would have not been too happy about.  Transgenderism is at the point in its own unique history of discrimination evolution where these groups were 30 years ago.   Is it easy to have a family member who is a member of a stigmatized group?  No.  Is the answer to have that person disavow their membership and suffer in silence in order to not embarrass anyone?  I don’t think so.

Kaplan’s comparisons to past forms of stigma are compelling. Klosterman applies ethical implications to coming out as trans where there are none, merely because societal acceptance of the trans community continues to lag behind the gay community and other groups. What is unethical is when people condemn a trans person for simply identifying as they are. What is unethical is forcing people to live decades in secret shame while they deny their true identities. What is unethtical is blaming trans individuals for their own sadness and the pain they might cause others by choosing to finally be authentic.

Klosterman could not be more wrong that the reader’s tragic sadness is “confined” to herself. Indeed, she is the only person who is not responsible for her turmoil.

Kelley Winters has been an outspoken advocate for GID reform.

A number of ThinkProgress readers have expressed concern over Monday’s widely-shared post, “APA Revises Manual: Being Transgender Is No Longer A Mental Disorder,” about the American Psychiatric Association’s decision to revise the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) to reclassify “Gender Identity Disorder” (GID) as “Gender Dysphoria.” A prominent LGBT scholar called the headline “erroneous,” noting that as long as a designation exists in the DSM, trans identities are still treated as a disorder. One trans advocate pointed out that “Gender Dysphoria” still stigmatizes trans people because there’s no exit clause to the diagnosis. Another activist shared a letter (Ansara, et al) that she and others submitted to the APA criticizing much of its framing around trans identities and providing possible alternatives. One other trans health activist called the article “a bit of a pinkwash” — essentially an attempt to give the APA more credit than it deserves.

As a cisgender (not trans) gay male who edits ThinkProgress’s LGBT vertical, I assume a heightened responsibility to report on trans issues effectively and thoroughly. For all members of the LGBT community, there are many issues that impact us in very personal and unique ways, resulting in many seemingly-conflicting points of view that all have validity. Many of the points submitted by readers have such merit, and the continued discussion seems an apt opportunity to further explore the complexity of anti-trans stigma and the potential impact of the APA’s decision.

For what it’s worth, ThinkProgress was not alone in its framing. Slate similarly reported “Being Transgender Is No Longer a Disorder.” The AP also compared this change to the 1973 removal of homosexuality as a disorder. Other LGBT outlets, like GLAAD, reported that “Gender Identity Disorder” had been removed from the DSM and that the idea trans people are disordered is now antiquated. Indeed, this was the intention behind yesterday’s post: to emphasize the value of the rhetorical change while acknowledging that complications remain.

Read more

The Illinois Family Institute (IFI), a designated anti-LGBT “hate group,” thought it was successful when it opposed East Aurora School District’s transgender-inclusive policy and the district then rescinded the measure. But now that the district has formed a new committee to readdress what would be best for trans students, IFI’s Laurie Higgins is livid. Higgins has posted an epic screed against the effort, blatantly attacking trans members of the committee as “two adult cross-dressing males who wish they were women” and encouraging bullying of transgender — what IFI calls “gender-confused” — students.

Before delving into IFI’s epic tirade of bigotry, let it be noted here that mental health professionals agree that the best therapy for young people questioning their gender identity is to affirm them, including with social recognition (pronouns, name choice, etc.) and a non-discrimination environment. Gender identity is a separate experience from biological sex, and like sexual orientation, it is not chosen, however biologically invisible it may (yet) be. To not respect an individual’s identity is to reject it, and to encourage such rejection is to promote bullying and discrimination. That is exactly IFI’s intention. Here are a few excerpts:

This policy would inappropriately mandate that teachers use pronouns that correspond to a student’s “gender identity” as opposed to his or her objective biological sex. The reason teachers should not be compelled to use pronouns that don’t correspond to a student’s biological sex is that requiring them to do so means requiring them to participate in a fiction. Students who suffer from gender dysphoria or Gender Identity Disorder (as opposed to intersex conditions) have an objective biological sex. No student, teacher, or administrator should be compelled to treat objective reality as if it doesn’t exist. The government has no ethical right to compel people to participate in a lie. [...]

Any teacher who believes rejecting a student’s identity is somehow going to help that student feel more connected to the learning experience should not be teaching.

The fact that boys or girls don’t choose to experience gender confusion doesnot mean that such feelings are normal or good. And it certainly does not mean that society must affirm their feelings or accommodate every behavior that such feelings impel. There is another psychological disorder analogous to gender dysphoria called Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID) in which sufferers identify with amputees and seek to have their bodies correspond to their self-conception through elective amputation of healthy body parts. To be intellectually consistent, would supporters of this gender-confusion policy argue that schools should accommodate the desire of anatomically whole students to use a wheel chair and the elevators intended for disabled students?

The reason the American Psychiatric Association is declassifying gender dysphoria as a disorder is because it is in no way “analogous” to such disorders. This comparison is offensive and demonstrate not only that IFI does not understand anything about transgender identities, but that it intentionally opposes an understanding of transgender identities.

Such a policy would teach students that in order to be kind, compassionate, and inclusive of those who experience gender confusion, they have to affirm those troubled peers’ impulses and ideas. In reality, neither love nor inclusivity requires affirmation and accommodation of every feeling, impulse, belief, or behavioral choice of every student in a school. Real love as well as commitments to morality, objective reality, and public order put limits on what schools can and should affirm and accommodate. And real love depends first on knowing what is true.

Here, Higgins is directly encouraging bullying. There is no “kind, compassionate and inclusive” way of telling a person that their identity exists outside of “morality, objective reality, and public order.” Such messages promote quite the opposite sentiment.

The Aurora community should demand that only Aurora community members may serve on the committee, and at the next election, they should get rid of any school board member who supports any “transgender” policy.

It is unclear if Higgins is even concerned if IFI is advocating on behalf of anybody. Her claims that cisgender (non-trans) students might get uncomfortable in the bathroom around a trans student — a consequence of being similarly misinformed about trans identities — are weak. They are no more substantive than arguments that white customers might feel uncomfortable with black customers at a lunch counter. IFI has a vendetta that is both political and personal, and such perspectives have no role to play when the goal is a safe school with an efficient learning environment. (HT: Friendly Atheist.)

It has been more than a year since the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was implemented, ending a legacy of blatant discrimination in the U.S. military. Unfortunately, it did not mark the end of inequality. As the nation honors Veterans Day, various other policies continue to treat the LGBT community second-class citizens. For example, though gay, lesbian, and bisexual servicemembers can now serve openly, the Defense of Marriage Act still prevents them and their families from receiving the same protections and benefits as their straight military brethren. Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and Freedom To Marry have released a new video, “Second Skin,” that “viscerally captures the cruelty” of treating LGB soldiers differently:

In addition, the military still does not allow transgender individuals to serve openly, deeming them “disordered.” Given the American Psychiatric Association is declassifying trans identities as a disorder in the coming year, this could be an important opportunity to advocate for change within the military. The National Center for Transgender Equality notes that progress has been made in providing benefits to the trans veterans who served in silence, but there is still more to be done:

On this Veterans’ Day, NCTE salutes the contributions and sacrifices of transgender veterans. According to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, 1 in 5 transgender adults has served in the armed forces. These brave Americans have served in silence, and often been denied the benefits they worked so hard and risked so much to earn. [...]

There is still much to do. Trans people are still forced to serve in silence, as our non-trans gay, lesbian, and bisexual brothers and sisters thankfully no longer have to do. Trans veterans are still denied their hard-earned health benefits when it comes to medically necessary transition-related surgeries. NCTE will keep working to fulfill our promises to trans servicemembers and veterans.

No individual wishing to protect this nation should be disqualified simply because of their identity, nor should they be denied benefits that others are entitled to.